What "rights" does nature give us?

[Contumacious]

With all this talk about "natural" rights..I was wondering. What are they?

I am glad you asked

1- the right to enslave my neighbor and compelled him/her to support me and mine

2- the right to disarm my neighbor

3- the right to read my neighbors email and monitor his/her internet activity

4- the right to bomb the fuck out of every country on the face of mother earth



.

6- There are no natural rights ; there are ONLY privileges which are dependent on bureaucratic discretion

.

 

[LeftofLeft]

To use any means to DEFEND ourselves.

 

[Sallow]

Define "rights".

The way I define them, "rights" is just a nice way of saying "this is what society allows you to do".

It's more..

This is what society is not allowed to do to me.

I understand the sentiment, yet nearly every "society" that's ever existed has, in one way or another, violated nearly everything considered a "right".

Well yeah.

Hence dispelling the notion that they are innate, natural, god given or anything else.

 

[Sallow]

Yeah. Beginning to wonder whether anyone else here has.

I've read it.

No laws are derived from it.

And King George is dead.

So..it was a one shot deal.

Whereas "fucking moron" just goes on forever, as you so amply demonstrate every time you open your cakehole.

Fuck you bitch.

And your supernatural pixie in the sky loving flabby fucking ass.

 

[Sallow]

To use any means to DEFEND ourselves.

That's really not a "right".

It's instinct.

 

[bripat9643]

Define "rights".

The way I define them, "rights" is just a nice way of saying "this is what society allows you to do".

It's more..

This is what society is not allowed to do to me.

So society decides what society is allowed to do to you? That means there are no limits on what society can do to you since it can change its mind tomorrow.

FAIL.

 

[bripat9643]

It's more..

This is what society is not allowed to do to me.

I understand the sentiment, yet nearly every "society" that's ever existed has, in one way or another, violated nearly everything considered a "right".

Well yeah.

Hence dispelling the notion that they are innate, natural, god given or anything else.

No. Hence your conception of rights is idiotic.

 

[neomalthusian]

I have to question the morality of people who think all rights only exist to the extent that a law qualifies them and society helps defend them. I think our sense of right vs. wrong (in which our rights are based) would exist irrespective of whether (or how well) we have instituted laws around them.

I wonder if skeptics of natural rights have any of their own sense about whether stealing, murdering, raping, etc. is right or wrong.

Do they rely entirely on what the law says to be able to comprehend right and wrong?

 

[bripat9643]

To use any means to DEFEND ourselves.

That's really not a "right".

It's instinct.

Rights are founded on instinct. It is a right.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Define "rights".

The way I define them, "rights" is just a nice way of saying "this is what society allows you to do".

No, that would be "rights under positive law", rather than "rights under natural law".

But who the fuck needs to know what any of that shit is or what it means? Just because our legal system and system of government and our entire culture are based on it, doesn't mean we can't just blow that shit off and chase our tails babbling about animals eating each other until our society collapses and we're no better than said animals.

This thread proves what I've always said: when our society and nation collapse, the main reason will be because the populace became complacent, lazy, and dumb. Every other reason that people like to point to as causing "America's decline" is really just a symptom of that one.

 

[Cecilie1200]

With all this talk about "natural" rights..I was wondering. What are they?

I am glad you asked

1- the right to enslave my neighbor and compelled him/her to support me and mine

2- the right to disarm my neighbor

3- the right to read my neighbors email and monitor his/her internet activity

4- the right to bomb the fuck out of every country on the face of mother earth



.

6- There are no natural rights ; there are ONLY privileges which are dependent on bureaucratic discretion

.

. . . said the society that was only a decade or so away from serfdom.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Define "rights".

The way I define them, "rights" is just a nice way of saying "this is what society allows you to do".

Society allows me to live?

 

[Cecilie1200]

I've read it.

No laws are derived from it.

And King George is dead.

So..it was a one shot deal.

Whereas "fucking moron" just goes on forever, as you so amply demonstrate every time you open your cakehole.

Fuck you bitch.

And your supernatural pixie in the sky loving flabby fucking ass.

Ohmigod, the amoral, sociopathic ignoramus doesn't like me! However will I survive without the high regard of someone I wouldn't piss on if he was on fire, because it would be a waste of perfectly good urine?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

It's more..

This is what society is not allowed to do to me.

I understand the sentiment, yet nearly every "society" that's ever existed has, in one way or another, violated nearly everything considered a "right".

Well yeah.

Hence dispelling the notion that they are innate, natural, god given or anything else.

The only thing that's "innate" in humanity is free will. "Rights" are nothing more than someone else's views on what should limit that will.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Define "rights".

The way I define them, "rights" is just a nice way of saying "this is what society allows you to do".

Society allows me to live?

Unless they kill you, yes.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I have to question the morality of people who think all rights only exist to the extent that a law qualifies them and society helps defend them. I think our sense of right vs. wrong (in which our rights are based) would exist irrespective of whether (or how well) we have instituted laws around them.

I wonder if skeptics of natural rights have any of their own sense about whether stealing, murdering, raping, etc. is right or wrong.

Do they rely entirely on what the law says to be able to comprehend right and wrong?

Neo, take a moment to really read the posts by this bunch of Neanderthals. They've been drawn a freaking diagram explaining that this is what "natural rights" means, and they just go, "Duuhh, too big words", and go back to blithering about animals and having the vapors because someone mentioned the "G" word.

They're not bright enough to think about any of this, so yeah, they really do think morality - to the extent that their dim bulbs even comprehend the concept - comes from laws.

At the point where the people in society become too ignorant to understand that a government MUST meet certain standards and answer to its people for meeting them, rather than the people answering to the government for THEM meeting ITS standards, in order for a just, lawful, and free society to exist, they become slaves in all but name. And they're not long away from being slaves in name, as well.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I understand the sentiment, yet nearly every "society" that's ever existed has, in one way or another, violated nearly everything considered a "right".

Well yeah.

Hence dispelling the notion that they are innate, natural, god given or anything else.

The only thing that's "innate" in humanity is free will. "Rights" are nothing more than someone else's views on what should limit that will.

Can you prove free will exists?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Define "rights".

The way I define them, "rights" is just a nice way of saying "this is what society allows you to do".

Society allows me to live?

Unless they kill you, yes.

Hate to burst your bubble, but society has never killed anyone.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Well yeah.

Hence dispelling the notion that they are innate, natural, god given or anything else.

The only thing that's "innate" in humanity is free will. "Rights" are nothing more than someone else's views on what should limit that will.

Can you prove free will exists?

No, of course not.

Not everything is "provable". But with the absence of evidence to the contrary, it's the simpler choice.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Society allows me to live?

Unless they kill you, yes.

Hate to burst your bubble, but society has never killed anyone.

I think I understand what you're saying, but it depends on the use of the term "society". "Societies" would be a better term.

I'm not referring to human society as a whole, but to various groups of individuals, defined by borders, loyalties, religion, or any number of other possibilities.